The USC study hits close to home as the Los Angeles county targets men who have sex with men (MSM) -- a high-risk group for HIV/AIDS -- with a so-called "test and treat" strategy. The strategy pushes for universal testing -- particularly between MSM and other high-risk groups. It calls for early retroviral drug treatment in individuals who test HIV positive.

The approach has thus far lowered the death rates and decreased the number of cases.

The USC researchers dug into data on MSM infections, which account for 82 percent of total known HIV infections nationwide. Using data from the Centers for Disease Control, internal data, and knowledge of drug resistance, the researchers modeled the occurrence of drug resistant viral strains if the "test and treat" strategy was aggressively followed over the next several years.

The study suggests that the rates of multiple-drug-resistant HIV (MDR) could jump from 4.79 percent to 9.06 percent.

The researchers say their results show a danger of over-treating the disease with drugs. They suggest that while the widespread testing is a good idea, that the medical establishment should back off preemptive treatment in asymptomatic individuals.

USC Professor Neeraj Sood, who was a lead author on the study, suggests that much of the benefit comes from the knowledge of infection status. He comments, "We’re not saying that testing everybody and treating everybody is bad. All we’re saying is that you should proceed with caution and closely monitor the prevalence of multi-drug-resistant HIV as you scale up the test and treat model. Prior studies show a dramatic reduction in risk-taking behavior by individuals once they know their HIV-positive status."

quote: data on MSM infections, which account for 82 percent of total known HIV infections nationwide.

Very interesting data. Pardon me for not feeling particularly sorry for this class of individuals. It looks like they started the spread of this virus and are now busy mutating it as well. All in the name of gratification.

I really don't think the problem is the virus itself, even if they do manage to curb this pandemic. The source of the problem will still remain. We will have a replacement disease for HIV sooner or later even if it is cured.

Biologically speaking, it just isn't favourable for our species to engage in recreational sex with a large number of individuals. The health implications are just too big. You would have thought somebody could have figured that out by now. But NO, everyone's so intent on proving religion wrong that they missed the whole point science is trying to get across to us here. Having multiple partners is detrimental to society. The only way to stop STDs from spreading is to change the common conception that having more partners is better. So let them start a campaign that brings us back to the one-person-for-life idea. Humans are a monogamous species whichever way you look at it.

Having a penis is detrimental, too. The penis abrades anal tissue, making penile anal sex the primary vehicle for HIV transmission. Testosterone is the cause of wars (death and destruction) and has been throughout human history.

Let's get rid of penises and testicles.

The fact is that a vast number of married men have "affairs". In fact, I will wager that 70% of married men will have sex outside their marriage at least once. The number may even be higher. I'd also love to see the number for those who would do this if they were 100% certain not to ever get caught.

Then there are the serial marriage people. They just change spouses like cars, one every so many years. Then they sit in judgement on gay people, claiming they shouldn't even be able to get married once.

My understanding is that humans, including women, are not monogamous by nature. So even marriage and other social pressure agents cannot completely quell the motivation toward having multiple partners.

Having multiple partners is perfectly natural for most species including Homo Sapiens. The idea of having a single partner is actually an outcome of limited resources, religious constraints on behavior, and acceptable social norms (imposed by one or both partners in a monogamous relationship).

There is actually no biological reason for monogamy. Quite the opposite, in fact, since males are driven to mate and fight over mates as an evolutionary priority to get our genes spread as much as possible. Our big brains simply got in the way when we invented stuff like "religion" :P. Not complaining about religion itself obviously - it's just not relevant when talking about biology.

As to the guy who feels so very very uncaring about HIV victims, you're an uncharitable ass. Not very religious of you at all. Suggest you read the Bible again.

quote: Pardon me for not feeling particularly sorry for this class of individuals.

Yeah, people deserve to get sick, suffer and die because they like having intimate contact with others. They should just blow each other up with drones. I hear there's a new medal being designed to celebrate that. Make war not love.

quote: It looks like they started the spread of this virus

Ask Nancy Reagan why she and Ronald didn't speak about HIV publicly for seven years but did laugh at a comedian's AIDS joke.

quote: and are now busy mutating it as well.

People evolved to have sex with each other. Unfortunately, viruses and bacteria also evolve.

quote: All in the name of gratification.

That's why people get up in the morning rather than shooting themselves. They are gratified by the experience of living.

I suppose planet Earth would be in better condition if that were to change.

The point here is that judging people is all well and good, but it doesn't accomplish anything. Men evolved to want to have sex, lots of it. Gay men happen to not have women in the mix to resist that. They also don't have the ability to get married and raise a family in most states (and don't have national marriage recognition). It is a fact that risky sex practice frequency is correlated with the level of oppression. This is why black "MSM" have higher HIV rates than whites. It's not because blacks are inferior people. It's because society oppresses them more.

The origin of HIV is complex and may have started in Haiti sometime in the 1920s. In any case, it's absurd to blame gay men for spreading it when no one knew anything about its existence or function. It was originally called "gay cancer" because no one knew it was a virus. Reagan, as I said, covered up the disease and helped it to become an epidemic. If you want to find blame, look at him first.

Yes, people who have unsafe sex, especially anal sex, do bear responsibility today. At the same time, no one does these things due to their character alone. There are lot of influences that make this issue far more complex.

As far as I know, also, heterosexual sex is the largest source of HIV infection internationally today. It is not a "gay disease". Lesbians also have the lowest STD rates. If we're going to argue that they are superior people, then we should say they're superior to heterosexual males as well. Does that mean we should give male infants sex reassignment, to stop HIV transmission? After all, penile anal sex is by far the best conduit for the virus.

No one cares who you feel pity or empathy for, although empathy is something that separates a normal person from a serial killer.